this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
-27 points (33.7% liked)
World News
32323 readers
563 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Voting for Stein in a FPTP voting system doesn't solve the problem that's been turned into a one issue campaign slogan. Even if she was the perfect candidate. The only realistic option is to try and change the stance of one of the two that can win the election, and out of those two choices, suddenly who to vote for is obvious. If it wasn't already.
How would you propose to do that while also offering said party an unconditional vote? I'm not American, but if you have an answer it would be useful here too. Parliamentary systems end up pretty much the same.
Protesting, public pressure in other ways, pressure through other representatives in Congress. Also the same to try and get the voting system changed so minority parties can have more effect, bending the major ones to have to talk about issues that for now are easy to avoid (the both sides, even if that's not entirely true). Another factor is lobbying, that needs to be restricted so large entities like corporations can't basically buy loyalty.
I would point out that any vote, even for Stein, is unconditional, so there's no way to avoid that. To make politicians keep their policy the public has to be engaged past the election.
Even if all of that is debatable, my main point is that a vote for Stein won't get any change. One of the two choices that can win the election has some chance, even if small. Whether that be from citizen pressure or them getting the power of office and doing things themselves.